https://otter.ai/s/9TAsLvpsST-9MKdbfp_1zg
0:00
Okay, since we have a quorum, let’s go ahead and call the meeting to order and we’ll start with the Is there anything you need to do Nicole before we get rockin?
0:09
No, you guys are good. We’re recording the meeting. So it’ll be uploaded as soon as we can within the next couple days to YouTube and Longmont public media. Thank you staff for helping out again tonight. There’s an so we’ll continue to monitor the waiting room you guys and let people in. So if you need anything just holler. Okay, thank you.
0:32
Okay.
0:35
Okay, is the meeting has been called to order. And is there any public to be heard?
0:43
No, there is no public to be heard.
0:45
Thank you, then let’s go ahead and move on to approving the minutes for both the August 13 2020 meeting and the September 3 2020. Meeting. Is there a motion to approve those minutes?
1:04
So moved.
1:06
Thank you, Jake. Second,
1:11
and raises their hand and is seconding. Second. Any questions? corrections? Anything like that?
1:18
Yes, Graham. I had a question about let’s see, what is it? It’s the motion that passed at the end of last meeting. We approved adding a question to the agents applications about equity. That part. I recall there that really seems accurate. The part I’m not clear about what I would ask the board to verify for me is the adding equity goal area under the self sufficiency and resilience priority area. And that struck me as maybe a little bit different than what we were talking about. I thought we were saying adding an equity goal under each of the priority areas and not just the self sufficiency.
2:02
My recollection is that we were going to add the boulder equity area to self sufficiency. And not one individual. I thought, but that’s my recollection.
2:16
And do you recall what the intention? I thought it was also under each area, we’re going to ask what they were doing to to support equity. Is there so we’ve got a we got a split decision on the board right now. Anybody else have a recollection? Peyton? That’s right. I’m sorry, cannon and Jake.
2:41
So I think there were two different things we talked about. And I think this is what Graham is thinking of is we talked about adding a separate bucket for equity. We also talked about adding a separate bucket under each of the categories. And I think what we ended up deciding was to add that boulder question that ld liberto said there were those two areas where we were not allowing people to specify those in their application. And we wanted to add a question to the application about how they would deliver it equitable, or multiple questions around that staff. Were going to research the best way to ask them how they were going to do that. But that was separate from the question of the different buckets. And with that list of 14 areas, I think we did 14 out of 16. And we said we should add the other two, that boulder also does.
3:35
Jake.
3:37
Yeah, that’s roughly my recollection. Mr. Chair as well is that we had a long conversation bag bucket, we ultimately came to a split decision of that that vote failed and what we decided to do, whereby the was to add the equity issue to each individual bucket to use that term, each individual area, and then to take the boulder question as well. But I think the intention to the board was to ensure that equity is measured in each one of our different areas, I think was the intention.
4:13
Kept grant gram.
4:14
Okay.
4:17
Any other feedback on that? And I noticed you had to unmute it and then I spoke over you
4:25
know, it’s fine.
4:31
Okay.
4:33
I don’t actually remember so I’m trusting shake, to be honest.
4:39
Okay, so if so, it sounds like the intention is different than what was captured in the minutes. I’m not sure I looked at some direction on how to best reconcile this. We can amend the minutes and then approve them at the next meeting. Or we could have a motion to approve them with amended language. It’s, I’d rather not do that because I think it’s confusing enough everything that we just walked through that probably the specific language is really going to matter. Elberta, Umberto, do you have a sense of what might work best?
5:26
Or Karen?
5:32
So, um,
5:35
so I would say that if, because when you look at the motion that we think we pass, so maybe maybe we just clarify where there is confusion or so that we can figure out how to change it, because I think it’s probably best to, you know, make the changes to the minutes and adopt the approved amendments is probably the easiest way to do that. The longer we wait, the fuzzier we get. So, so it seems like that, in looking at that particular set of minutes that that the it sounds like the first part of that is is correct, that, you know, that that we accept le bergeaud suggestion of adding the equity goal area under self sufficiency and resiliency priority. So that was that was the Boulder, the boulder option. That makes sense. Yes. And, and then adding an equity question to the application, which is what we really brought back tonight, which we understood what would be that instead of just having a an area where we address equity, that we include that in the application so that, that we’re looking at how they are providing all of their programs and services in an equitable manner. So, so I think we are aligned with the intent, but maybe we didn’t capture it in the minutes and the way that that is clear.
7:11
Well, I would offer that is clear. I don’t know.
7:17
Perhaps we left?
7:22
It might be okay, that it’s not precise. Because I think we are going to discuss that tonight. And tonight, we can give more specific direction to which you know, that it’s included, for instance, and all the priority areas, and it shall be included in this what you know,
7:45
I think what we said is that we wanted someone to be able to apply for, you know, if what their program is doing is about equity, that they can apply for that. And what we said is this, and there’s a an existing goal in under self sufficiency and resiliency, which is what the city of Boulder uses. So that so I think as an example, so of alchemy, Tay wanted to or intercambio or someone because that’s kind of their purpose that they would have, they would have an area in which to mark and say, This is what our program addresses is this particular goal area? So I think we said that was already in the application. And that made sense. And then what we wanted to bring back tonight was what kind of equity questions we want to include in the application so that we so that we’re looking at how agencies are addressing equity in a more broad, kind across all aspects of their operation. So I think that’s really what we’re going to bring back and talk about tonight.
8:52
Okay, Caitlin.
8:55
I would just add, I think, as I’m reading the minutes and hearing what Karen is saying, we said to add those two things from the boulder area, I don’t think that I realized from the slides that we were looking at that those fell under self sufficiency, that they were part of that goal area, which may be where the confusion is coming, because they were it was like 14 goal areas, but they weren’t necessarily subdivided into our like big buckets. I don’t really have I mean, we can talk about whether we want to change that. I don’t think I made the connection that it was that those were going to be subdivided and that this would be under that. So maybe that is where the so the minutes are actually more precise than what we were talking about. Versus less precise, which is fine. I think that’s so I’ll just add that that was where my confusion Oh, hearing that helped identify that that’s where I would be confused on it.
9:51
Okay, good to
9:54
Oberto.
9:56
So just as a reminder, the goal areas are what are the drop down
10:03
goals that
10:06
the agencies can choose from on the program level of the application, then the self sufficiency is really the back end or back office, for lack of a better word bucket where we have categorized these goal areas. That that’s the relationship that exists between the two.
10:33
Okay,
10:35
so the question related to the minutes really comes down to is the motion as it’s reflected here. inaccurate as to the intention of what we were voting on? If not, then we can just accept the minutes and we can make any modifications going forward to give precision or additional direction to what we voted on last week. That’s my take on it.
11:15
Anybody feeling like that is not a good way to move forward.
11:28
Okay,
11:29
Jake, I think you’re like the parliamentary nerd. So do you have any any thoughts on that? And I know, I heard in the kindest way. Most Yeah. No,
11:40
I think that that makes sense. As a motion. Mr. Chair, if you wanted to move that that would mean, well, I guess we don’t necessarily need a motion if we’re all comfortable with. With that. Because if the language of the minutes if the goal is that we’re going to specifically clarify the language in the minutes tonight that I think we can move forward safely. And I think also through this conversation, just informally, staff has a pretty good understanding of what our intentions are is and what what our goals are. So yeah, I think moving forward would be perfectly order. Great.
12:13
Yeah, I don’t have any concerns that we’re not going to get to our desired outcome if we accept the minutes as presented.
12:20
And Brian, I’m not the Robert’s Rules, nerd. But you do have a motion on the floor. Yes. Accepting the minutes. And then we’ve had discussion about that. And so it sounds like you would want to move forward and and see if that motion will pass.
12:35
Yep. Let’s go ahead and vote on the motion to approve the minutes as presented. All those in favor, please. Okay,
12:52
Any opposed? Please raise your hand.
12:56
Okay, great. We can move forward them. Thank you, everybody. So, Karen or Elberta? Who’s going to take us through the next steps here?
13:12
Is he am? Okay,
13:18
you guys, I’m loving that it was the
13:21
No, no, I was gonna get, um, um, can I share my screen, Nicole, I just want them to see the document that I created, and then reference back to it so they understand where this fits. Alright, so I’m gonna share the packets. Okay, so what you’re looking at is the minutes that we just discussed. And approved, then, so I want to start here. So I’m gonna kind of set set the groundwork. And Karen, you can jump in whenever and if anyone has questions, I can’t see everybody’s just speak up, because I can only see four people on my little strip right now. So, um, so basically, I took that, you know, I went back and I listened to the meeting. And I took that mandate to add a question to the Human Services funding application. And I will say that it is the one of the most difficult things to do. Because adding a one question around racial equity or equity itself is a very challenging thing to do. And after some back and forth with Karen, I did draft some some options and I sent it to Karen and then we had a back and forth the way that we decided to go is, um, we would like to use the gear racial equity tool that’s in your packet. We want to add that to The Resource Center have the application. And in the instructions, we want to ask agencies as they are answering the questions, because one of the things I noticed is that, in reality, a lot of the questions in that racial equity tool are similar to the questions that we ask in the application. There are some similarities. The biggest difference, of course, is that racial equity tool has a lens of racial equity in it. And so we want to share that with the agencies and asked them to consider that to inform their answers, and ask them to think beyond just racial equity and think about equity in a broader term, as they’re answering these questions. At the same time, I wanted to honor what the board had asked. And so as Karen and I discussed where the question around equity in the application directly belonged, we came down to adding a question to the number three target population. So and unfortunately, when I said to so in my when I looked at my Word document, from the word please share that to me is in red, because that is new that was not in the question before the question ended in the describe the specific population served by the program. And so I added the please share strategies the program will implement to ensure target populations are served equitably? it again, it was a challenge to to boil down such a huge topic of equity into one question. But I feel comfortable in having the agencies use the racial equity tool to inform their answers on the application as they’re writing them to use that tool to help them understand the value of equity. And I was going to add that to the instructions as well. So that’s kind of where we landed. And I’d love to have feedback and discussion from the board.
17:22
Thank you, Alberto.
17:24
Okay, feedback for Ella Oberto on. I think there’s two elements here. One is using the government Alliance on racial inequity form, including that in the application to assist as a tool to assist applicants are evaluating the racial equity question or the equity question in general. And then the second part is, what do you think about the language of equity included in the application and where it is included? On question? Three?
18:05
Why don’t we start Go ahead, Deanna.
18:09
So I was just gonna say, I like the language and question three that you’ve added, I think it’s nicely broad and open ended and gives them a lot of opportunity to
18:18
discuss their goals.
18:22
And I think my concept of the equity question was very broad as well, and that we weren’t limiting it to racial justice issues, and that we I was contemplating, you know, are they equitably applied to, you know, the LGBTQ community? Are they providing access to seniors, people with disabilities? So I was, I’m happy to see that the question is open that way, I think that leaves it so that the plans or the programs can really develop that. And I think providing them some guidance with the Gare questionnaire is good, as long as they don’t think that the question is only about racial justice issues, which is obviously huge and very important, but not exclusive.
19:04
Right. And that’s why my when I write the instructions, I want to make sure that I make that very clear.
19:12
Thank you.
19:14
Yes. And
19:18
I don’t know, I’m just not sure if that’s
19:22
big enough for the question, you know, equitable. I don’t know if that can be perceived as financial. Or, I mean, I wanted to be more inclusive to other populations like race. I don’t know. It just seems a little it is broad, but I’m not sure if everyone is going to get it. Like if alchemy che looked at that. What are they going to think?
19:58
Thanks, Sam. We’ve got Karen And then Caitlin, and then Councilmember Christiansen.
20:11
Nicole, could you unmute? Oh, I got I got it.
20:18
There you go, Karen,
20:20
we need to define what equitable means. I would think we need like a definition. What does equity? What does it mean? So
20:29
does it mean? You know, everything or so it’s like, that’s just such a broad word. What does it mean? Exactly? So that’s what I’m asking.
20:42
Okay, thank you, Caitlin.
20:46
Um,
20:47
yeah, I agree with Ann and Karen around that. And one of the things I’m seeing in the, the gear questions that might help inform that. So right now we’re saying the question is, please describe how it will be delivered, equitably? And I wonder if the question in like, step two, number two, what does it tell you about it? What is data tell you about existing inequities? And how are you going to address root causes of that, and I wonder if something that’s a little more specific, rather than making sure this is going to be delivered equitably? asking them to talk about how the program maybe addressing root causes of inequity and to describe what those inequities are. So that it still leaves it open to talk about race, gender, LGBTQ issues, age, any any sort of that, but really diving into like addressing the root causes of it. Because I think that’s really what we’re getting at is we want it delivered equitably. But we also want to see that folks are thinking about the root causes of some of those inequities. And I think that’s kind of why we were thinking that it fit under so many different things is that there are inequities in all of our different buckets. So I wonder, I’m just thinking that we could maybe be more specific there to get to what the inequities are that they’re addressing.
22:11
Thank you, Caitlin, Councilmember Christiansen and then Jake.
22:20
Thank you. And thank you elevator, too, for including this, this document of the GA ra document. My question is whether I because I think that having people look at this document and talking among themselves, will help them focus on issues maybe that they have considered and haven’t considered, but at least they’ll be able to convey them to us better. I was wondering if they will be filling out this document, or just using this as a something to inform themselves? Will they be turning in something like this? Or just using that to inform them? Will everybody be getting this this
23:17
two page document?
23:19
So concert occasion, it’ll be available to any every application applicant that applies? I didn’t. So I think I didn’t think we’re going to ask them to fill it out and send it back in for a couple of reasons. One is, I mean, that would add extra burden to you all too, if it was going to become a part of reviewing. And then to, you know, it does add extra effort to the agency to have to fill out another document as along with all the things that were asking already. And then I think the third thing is when you actually look at the questions, there are a lot of similarities. I think our questions in the applications are well thought through. And I think that they that while the gear document definitely has some nuances around equity. I think there’s still a lot of similarities that look at how we’ll have your research. I will for example, as a piece on engagement, I will have you engaged the clients and implementation or participants in implementation. So I just think that that that the gear document was a good tool, but not necessarily a requirement.
24:31
Okay, I understand that because you know, we were already giving them a lot of paper. They don’t need more paperwork, but rather than have it available to them, I would do the you know where they have to pull it out of us I would have a push thing where we give it to them so that everybody’s got this so they can consider this. I think Karen hit the nail on the head with the What do we how do we define equity and I think this helps people Get that and and get that they don’t have to go to this, we’re going to give it to them because we’re really serious about it. So I, my suggestion would be to just send this along as a PDF to everybody. So they get that. We’re not kidding. We mean it. So
25:22
Karen, do you have a clarification on on? Councilmember Krishnan this
25:27
question.
25:28
Not, not necessarily clarification, but I think just to add, so, so so Polly, we did, we did go back and forth about whether to to have this be required to have them fill out the form, you know, so that we so as Ellie Berta, we graduate back and forth, because we think that that ngaire document is probably the best one that we’ve seen, that really helps. I mean, it’s a document that weird to be using a city block on employees for programs that we’re offering to the community, it’s to be a guiding framework for as we are thinking about all the things that we offer in the city, how do we begin to think about you know, is Can everyone have access is the way that we’re providing the service? is how we’re communicating about the service? Is it something is, is? Are we doing that in a way that everyone can access the service? Are we leaving anybody out, by the way, we are delivering the particular program our service, so so we did go back and forth about whether we would make whether we would make this a requirement to complete that, or, or put that in and represent and maybe we can represent more strongly, as far as the the document itself, because it will be on the will be in the Resource Center. But we certainly can reference it or even send it out as a PDF of that would be helpful. So we ended up landing on it being a framework and to give folks ideas, because we do think that because we get we often get general answers to these the questions that we’ve asked in the past. And I think we do want more specific answers, we do want to see evidence that folks really looked at the data. And the data is informing how they are providing their service in an equitable fashion. So we went back and forth all the way around about the, you know, the best way to do this. So we didn’t miss it. So we’re really interested in other in your feedback and what you think we really should be doing.
27:38
I don’t think that we should require everybody to fill this out. I was saying, just send it to them. So they have it available. So they don’t have to hunt around for it more in their face. Yeah. So so that they they have that everybody has that available? And they can use that to answer question number three, and it’ll be helpful to them. And it’ll be helpful for them to analyze things because you know, not every agency, some agencies are very, very targeted on the people that they are going to help. So inherently, they are not broadly equitable, maybe I mean, they are not making sure they have got 50 things checked off. They are targeted. They’re taking care of a targeted group. So they don’t necessarily deal with transportation, I mean, all the things on this list. So it doesn’t make sense for everybody to have to fill out all this paperwork. And in addition, it’s more work for you and F Oberto and everybody else to fill out something that’s not really necessary to be filled out in the first place.
28:48
Thanks. Thank you, Jake. Thanks for your patience. Go ahead.
28:53
I appreciate it. Mr. Chair. I just want to circle back a little bit to Caitlin’s point because I think it’s a great one. And I really appreciate her her thoughts on this. This was some of my concern in our conversation last week about the need for a separate bucket and all that I won’t relitigate that conversation. But But my concern was generally that by not doing that, we make the issue a little small. And we make the way our process handles the issue a little bit small. So I think that Caitlin did a really good job of getting to the point that I was going to make, and I was going to ask somebody, if they had wording. They could tackle kind of that specific issue that we aren’t necessarily just, at least for me, I’m not just necessarily concerned about equitable delivery of services. I want these agencies to be thinking about how their operation and how the service they provide generally impacts the equity issue. So I think Caitlin really got to the crux of what I was was going to mention and I would hope that she can can think about some specific wording changes to bring into the the Question that should be willing to potentially move and I would be all over that. So thanks.
30:06
Thanks, Jean Graham, I would support that string of thought and suggest the step for question be slightly modified and ask what are your strategies for advancing equity in all its forms?
30:22
To make it broader, more inclusive,
30:26
and then it has teeth in virtue of the answers, resulting in scores, which result in the distribution of funds. My concern with the question three, as worded now is it qualifies it with target population, which in and of itself sort of presents this backdoor, so that we say, Well, how are you equitably serving your target population? Well, maybe the whole issue of target population in and of itself is an expression of an equity in that particular case, and so that that language worries me a little bit, but maybe I have an overly suspicious mind. I mean, what if my target population was white, Anglo Saxon, you know, heterosexual males? So like, then, yeah, we’re probably distributing services to those people I got, I’m not gonna want to give you points for that, even if you’re really doing a good job of equitably delivering content to that target population. So I think just make it super broad. And, you know, how, what are your strategies for improving equity, and all its ways and and everything you do something just really broad?
31:37
Thanks, Graham. Go ahead and Oberto.
31:40
So I like that, Graham, um, I, I think the target population, though, the reason that we have that is because we understand that, remember, this is a pretty, this is a pretty broad funding base, right? We’re funding all sorts of things. So for example, Boulder Valley, women’s health, and who their funding is not going to be the same, that somebody else may be funding, for example, hope, right? They may, it may be a very different population. And so we understand that and we want to know, is that given what the program is intended to do? And who is it intended to help? How is the program ensuring that within that population, for example, let’s say that it is intended to to, to work with immigrants that are learning English? How is that program being equitable, that is not only Spanish speaking immigrants, but how are immigrants from Nepal? or Germany? Or, you know, so so it really is about ensuring that it’s a target of business people learning English? How does everyone who is learning English get served in a way that that changes their their situation?
33:05
Thank you, Alberto. And,
33:08
and then Caitlin.
33:10
So I think that’s good. But are we going to be able to ask agencies questions during this funding round, so you know, I think we could say to that agency, do you also serve people from other countries other than just a Spanish speaking population? I guess I don’t even know how we’re going to go forward with the funding stuff. Are we going to do it virtually? Like how is all that going to work? Maybe I just missed out on it. But if we could ask questions, then it would be better.
33:54
Thank you. And Caitlin.
33:59
Yes, so I wanted to make a suggestion I’m don’t think I’m ready to make a motion for this. But I’m a suggestion for a way that we can incorporate some of the some of what we’re talking about. So for question two, it currently says program description describe the specific activities that the program will provide and the anticipated benefits that will result for the program. I was thinking something along the lines of please identify what if any, historical or current inequities are being addressed and how the program addresses the root causes of these inequities. And then to complement that in the program evaluation, adding a sentence at the end. So this is number seven. Please also include how you will measure or evaluate the impact on the inequities identified in the program description. So we tie it both into describing the program but also in about how they will evaluate that they are meeting that objective of the program. So I mostly wanted to throw that out there to see if others have thought On other ways we might incorporate it. Or if that maybe gets a little closer to what we’re trying to get folks to answer.
35:09
Here. Yeah.
35:13
I just know from the past, that’s going to be complicated for agencies, especially small agencies, I think it’s going to be difficult for them, especially agencies that don’t have a lot of money. Which part? Do you mean? Um, the second part that you were talking about the,
35:36
how are they going to measure that?
35:39
I don’t know.
35:42
Le pepto, do you have a answer to that?
35:46
Not necessarily. But I think the, to your point, and actually what I was going to add is, so a couple of things. One, this will probably this will be the first time that we do this. And so we’ll we’ll probably have to extend some grace. Because folks been, they may be confused. And I may be answering tons of questions from agencies during that time.
36:13
And then to evaluation.
36:18
I think that I that is a good question to add. And so I’ll give you an example. I’ve had some great conversations with second wind fund. That does, and one and I had a meeting with them and their and their board chair. And they showed me they they’ve done a good job of tracking who’s using their services. And you know, they had a large Latino population of youth that were contemplating suicide. Right, I think it was a large percentage. And so when I asked them, I said, so what when you see this, what are you thinking about? As far as how you deliver services, as where do you recruit therapist? What does it mean for your thoughts on how do you support these children, these youth beyond the sessions? And so I think that that made them think I’m not sure if they’re measuring it? Well, when we didn’t, we didn’t go into that deep of, but I hope that what these will do is make agencies think i think there will be confusion any way you look at it, this is a new topic for a lot of folks, not that they haven’t been working on equity issues for a long time. But to put it into words, is going to be new for many of the agencies. So I think we’ll have to have some grace. And at the same time, yeah, I know who said it. But yeah, we do mean business about this, and we want you to think about it. Even if we do extend grace.
38:00
Thank you for that Alberto. And I share your your recognition that this is a new track, and we’re going to learn a lot, you know, we’re probably going to learn 60% of what we wish we would have known in the first year and then have incremental improvements over the rest of the time. is so we, we know that perfection is not what we’re going to get no matter how much we want it. I do just want to say I share Graham’s thought on the idea the semantics of target population. And so I wonder if in question three target population where we say describe the specific populations served by the program, if maybe that’s not a place to say, somehow tease out the question of how did you know how do you evaluate your target through the lens of equity? So for instance, if if Graham’s program came back with I’m targeting a 56 year old, white Anglo Saxon male that lives on Carolina street in Longmont? Which, if there’s a big check, you know, we can talk about a might apply, but that that would not he’d have a hard time answering through the lens of equity, how he defined his population. So that’s just I don’t have a solution to the thought. But Councilmember Christiansen
39:42
um, I do think it’s important. I think maybe that the term target population is kind of weird. And implies that. I mean, I see what Graham is saying here. It’s sort of implies that I think it’s an odd term to be using. But I do, but it is true that maybe we could use a different term. Um, we fund. As Elberta said, we fund such a variety of groups, and they do have a population that they’re going to serve that is not necessarily. Um, well, these are agencies, they are not businesses, they don’t go out and drum up services, they don’t go out and drum up business because, you know, people come to them because they need help. They don’t go out and try to find people who need help and different groups, different cultures, different groups have very different ways of asking for help. Most people don’t ask for help. We know this from surveys that have been done about one out of people, one out of eight people, we did a survey with housing and Human Services A few years ago, that’s that.
41:12
Or Karen did a survey, I’m not sure what to this.
41:18
One out of eight people who are eligible for services applies, the rest don’t apply, because most Americans of all groups have been taught that it’s weak to ask for help. That it’s shameful to ask for help. It’s shameful to need help. So in many ways, you’re not getting it an overview of the culture of America anyway, you’re as getting people who really are, I think, quite desperate for help, or they wouldn’t be asking for help in the first place. And so to try to put a layer of
42:06
expecting it to be
42:10
equally distributed, is a little odd, if you see what I mean, in that, I come from a long line of farmers, we never asked for help no matter how, for an advocate, there are a lot of cultures where, for instance, a lot of very traditional cultures would never ask for help with their elderly, because they would feel ashamed if they couldn’t take care of their parents. And yet, there are elderly people who need care, and their their kids can’t take care of them the way they need to be taken care of. And yet they won’t ask for help. So I do think it’s important for us to keep in mind that these are agencies that are not businesses, they’re not going out and drumming up business. So to expect them to have an absolutely equal distribution of different races, different cultures, different genders, different religions, is a lot, but we want them to try. We want them to really think about this and be sure that they are trying that they’re not discriminating against anybody, and that they’re actually trying to find people who need help. And it is difficult to figure out how, how to do this and be fair to them and be you know, given that not everybody asked for help, even though they desperately need it.
43:59
Sorry. Thank you, Paulie. And and then Caitlin, Karen, did you raise your hand?
44:05
Okay, and I think we just need to move on on this cuz I think we can get bogged down a lot on this. And I think I really trust le barito to come up with a question. That will make sense, and I think his question is good, but just a little bit more teeth in it. Um, if you can just do something with a little bit more Roberto, but I trust that you can do that. And then I think we should just move on.
44:37
Thank you. And Caitlin.
44:40
Um, I definitely hear the need to move on. I want to, I think something that Councilwoman Christiansen said there at the end is that these organizations, they’re not businesses, they’re not going out and recruiting. But these types of questions, point to things that are structural inequities. In terms of how services are delivered, so if, for example, you know, I just think about the the large Spanish speaking population in Longmont. And if an organization is targeting, for example, low income or children, but they are way out of whack comparatively to long lost population, in terms of Spanish speakers that are served by it, that points to a potential issue and how they are delivering that program, if they’re not providing Spanish translation services, they’re not providing, you know, and I don’t necessarily expect that every organization is going to do everything. But if, you know, if we have a whole bunch of agencies that are primarily serving, you know, the white Anglo Saxon, you know, population, because they don’t have the structural pieces to support a large percentage of our population, then that’s a problem. And so I think the idea of these questions is really to get folks thinking about, you know, is is your target population, or are the demographics of who you’re serving, really the full demographics of who could be served based on what you say your program goals are, you know, if you say your program goals are to serve, you know, low income children, but then that only low income children you’re hitting is, you know, such a small percentage, and it’s very racially or ethnically or language, you know, skewed compared to the population, there might be something that needs to be improved in terms of that program delivery, to make sure it’s getting to the folks who need it, even you know, there’s cultural things, there may be ways that they’re thinking about it. So I think that it’s really important to ask the questions to get folks thinking about it. This is the first year No one’s going to get it perfect. I don’t think anyone is expecting perfection. I think it’s really just to start these conversations, and to get folks thinking about how both the agencies and we and the city can be thinking about these deeper questions of how how we make sure that the right folks are getting access to services McCarran.
47:13
So in the spirit of and urging, you know, it seems like what what I have heard, is that, generally, there has been a suggestion to modify questions, two, four, and seven. And so Caitlin had some specific language for questions two and seven. I think Graham threw out some general questions. General suggestion for item number four, question number four. And that we not try to just have that we actually keep the target population question as it is, it was as an and not put the share the strategies for equitable equitably serving the target population. So it sounded like, we want to have more equity questions or equity, follow up in questions two, four, and seven. And that we also take a stab at defining what we mean by equity, and kind of in that overview, and that we have the Gare framework document available for agencies to really reference and get some more ideas about the framework. So that’s kind of what I heard people heard advisory board members really, you know, talk about
48:42
Thank you. One comment, and then a question. The only thing that occurred to me is on question three, you know, I think what’s challenging with target population is it is a relatively accurate term, because we think of it in terms of needs, agencies, target populations of specific needs. And so typically, we don’t think about it in terms of race, ethnicity, gender. So I was almost wondering if really that second part of that question wouldn’t be something more like, please share strategies the program will implement to ensure target populations are served regardless of race, ethnicity and gender or something like that. Right. Really just calling it out. Okay. I that is not a point for discussion. I just wanted to throw that out there is in terms of what you Karen and L. Umberto are wanting from us, in this meeting, is the guidance Karen that you’re hearing adequate? Do you need a decision or
49:57
what do you need? So
50:01
I’ll go first and other care. So what I would need I mean, I actually agree with with Karen, I think the suggested verbiage that was suggested by Graham and Caitlin are is helpful. I would just need that verbiage. So that I could put it into the application. I think those questions with the understanding that folks are not going to get it perfect. I’m fine adding those questions to, you know, to or adding those additions to those questions. I just need the verbiage.
50:37
And I would imagine, so either we could have, I think we’ve captured it in the recording, you know, so Nicole can weigh in on whether So, so I think we’re recording this, we have that we could certainly ask Caitlin to and Graham to probably has written down her comments. I don’t know whether Graham has, or or not. But we certainly have that in the, you know, in the recordings that we can just take that information and and make the revisions to those three questions, you know, based on the input that you provided? And, and because I think, because I think it does get to because we talked about the importance of, you know, having whatever those strategies be more data informed. And then, you know, you know, because and program evaluation is something that we’re paying more attention to, and, and, you know, how are they continuing to look at program evaluation as relates to equity. So I think we’ve captured it. In the notes, I’m going to say in Nikolas capture that I’m sure she has. And, and if you are all good with us taking that and moving forward, then I think we just want to make sure that we are asking what will be helpful for the advisory board to really evaluate and get a better idea of how agencies that we’re funding are providing the service with an equity lens, they’re planning for it, they know something about it, they’re looking at it, they’re paying attention to it. So we want to do what you think will be helpful.
52:22
Okay, thank you. So from my perspective, this has really been a helpful discussion, because this is our first foray into including this kind of topic. So I think it’s important that we really kind of think through how that happens. I also know, we don’t want to micromanage staff. And it is going to be an imperfect process. And there does have to be a lot of grace given to everybody to really move this thing forward and make sure it has an impact. So sounds like we’re in a good place. Jake. Are you just stretching or do your good? Okay. All right. Okay, any other discussion? I think we can move on if it’s good was staff. Okay, let’s go ahead and move on. Thank you.
53:26
I think moving on is going to the neck to other business question five. So unless there’s any. So unless there’s anything else I’m, you know, and asked about. So, how the heck are we going to do it, you know, approaches this year? Um, you know, we really haven’t talked about that. I imagine that we are doing probably doing some kind of zoom meetings. I mean, we don’t know.
53:55
But so we were just trying to get the
53:59
application completed and out the door. And, and then certainly, I think we can come back for our What are we in September, so for October meeting, and and kind of pound out what that hearing?
54:18
orders are at that point in time.
54:21
So can I share my screen chair so I can share the it’s not updated? But I want to remind folks of the original type. Yeah, yeah. Can I do that?
54:32
Please.
54:34
All right, I’m gonna go ahead and share.
54:38
So this I and I was supposed to up and I haven’t updated.
54:47
So as you can see, we’re not too far off of time. We wanted to get this out by this Friday. I’m in and that has not happened. So we might have to push this date a little back. And really this, we had already decided this was gonna be pushed back, we weren’t going to be too concerned about this 115 date. So give us more time for this process right here. All right, we were going to, we’re going to give ourselves more time, maybe even into December to do this. So I think it will probably be a zoom meeting. I think that zoom allows us to have waiting rooms, which is helpful. And we can bring people in, it’ll be more work for Nicola, she brings people in and out due to the timing. But I think that that is what we can do, by just want to show that we are, we are not necessarily to off on the original timeframe that we set. So I can probably get everything done by mid week, next week, and maybe send it out by or have it. I’m going to be out next week, Thursday and Friday, but I can probably have it set in the system to be sent out on the on Friday.
56:12
And we just push things back a week.
56:15
How will that work with people who are if we approve the recommendations on January, I will no longer be here. And new people may be coming on? Does that matter?
56:29
We don’t approve the recommendations. That’s that’s council approves recommendations.
56:34
Okay. Okay. So we will
56:36
have our deliberation meeting in December, we can still try to aim for that.
56:42
But
56:44
But yeah, okay, that makes sense.
56:48
Yeah, I would ask that we I think the schedule looks good. Let’s try to you know, I know we’re going to lose a few days here and there. And where we can, we’ll try to compress that to stick to the schedule, as much as possible on all the remaining blocks. I’m certain we’re not going to be meeting in December, in person. So Nicole will have incredible zoom skills. After this year. Yeah, you’re definitely push for that raise Nicole.
57:26
For the holiday bonus.
57:28
Yeah.
57:30
And just to reiterate, the,
57:36
you know, are really critical, because these, the the big piece of this, then is to make sure that our evaluations align with these questions. So making sure that we’re, we’re good with how these questions are asked becomes really important, but
57:55
this is great. So
57:58
the, there’s no need to talk about the evaluation portion of this. Is that correct?
58:07
So, so I think that will be something I mean, Alberto, we, I mean, we’ve already worked at aligning the evaluation. I think we talked about that earlier with the advisory board. So we want to make it easier to evaluate so that the evaluation tool that you use, follows along with the, you know, with the actual application. So given we’ve made a few modifications in the application, we’ll have to go back and look at modifying the evaluation tool. But I think we did bring that back to y’all earlier. And I think we were good with those with those changes. So I would say that probably what, what we’ll be asking Nicole to do in the fairly near future is to start working on calendars and getting the hearing schedule set up so that you can get that on your calendars and we can we can be ready to you know to rock and roll and lock in those those dates because we realize that we are doing this during November, December, which is you know, usually a pretty big time.
59:14
Yeah. Not this year.
59:18
Okay. Get your flu shots. Yeah.
59:23
Thank you. Thank you for the reminder and
59:27
Okay, so is there Chiquita. You’re one board member. We haven’t had a chance to hear from you. Any thoughts or questions before we start closing it up?
59:41
No, I think
59:45
I
59:46
agree with Caitlin and gram and I
59:50
totally believe that Alberto will arrange it to how we want it to be said he know where we come From, you know what the output outcome we are looking for. So I
1:00:07
I believe he can do it. I have
1:00:14
shucky done and no
1:00:16
pressure. I will try. I will try my hardest to get it right.
1:00:21
Listen, if you don’t get it exactly like we want it’s no big deal. We will just be silently disappointed.
1:00:30
He will get it done. His end of your bonus will go to Nicole.
1:00:38
This is gonna be bad office dynamics. Don’t eat any banana bread from Nicole. Okay. Okay, thank you. So any other business? No. Okay. With no other business. I’m read visiting my agenda here. Is there a motion to adjourn?
1:01:06
So moved.
1:01:09
Second.
1:01:11
Okay. With that the meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Oh, and by the way, I just wanted to thank you all for for making time for this meeting. I know you’re all busy and but it’s so valuable. And I love hearing your feedback. So thank you very much for for attending and being part of it.
1:01:30
All right, everybody. Have a great rest of your week.
1:01:34
Thanks, everybody.
1:01:36
Thanks, Kara.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai